fastasleep

tht said:

Would have preferred a design where the touch layer has the precision of the display dpi. That is, there is a capacitive element along with the RGB subpixels, and the Pencil is just a "dumb" piece of equipment, only with a tip that can activate the capacitive elements in the screen. Then, you can just have a variety of Pencils with varying tips and brush designs.

PauloSeraa said:

Amazingly, it's the first product Apple has ever introduced that no one actually wants to use. Oh, some people want the experience it unlocks, for sure. But no one actually wants to use the product...they will use it in spite of it. No one actually wants a gigantic, heavy, nausea-inducing, world-isolating headset. Not for anything. And certainly not for what amounts to an iPad strapped to their head. So every single user will be someone who is putting up with that awful hardware in order to get access to an interesting software experience. What kind of potential does that actually have?

I feel like Apple is doing an awful lot of pretending here. And those championing the product are too. Riding the coattails of other confident successes where Apple was right to be confident. There are seeing if they can actually fake the confidence, and create a market as a result. I just don't see it, because you will never fake people into spending $3500+, and you won't fake them into wearing it for any length of time.

No one ever looked at the iPhone and said, "Ugh I have to hold this thing in order to use it?" 
No one ever looked at the Apple Watch and said "Ugh I have to wear this thing in order to use it?"
No one ever looked at the HomePod and said "Ugh I have to plug this thing in and put it out of the way somewhere in order to use it?"
No one ever looked at the AppleTV and said "Ugh I have to plug this thing into my TV and watch it?"

These are not objectionable products. The VisionPro is objectionable hardware from the start. People in the microscopic VR community seem to take for granted that shitty uncomfortable hardware is to be expected if you want such an experience. That shouldn't be acceptable to Apple, because it certainly isn't acceptable to average consumers.

danox said:

Marvin said:

But the problem is including Apple and Google on the graph and implying they are 'game companies'. Most of those companies run stores for 3rd party game developers and make a significant amount of revenue that way too just like Epic does (they only really make 3 games - Unreal Tournament, Gears of War, Fortnite). His beef is that companies who don't make games shouldn't take a cut from companies who sell games through their store, which is a dumb point of view. GameStop, WalMart, Amazon sold games for years without making games and no legal challenge from Sweeney.

The real elephant in the room, as is clear from the chart, is Tencent, which is the largest outside investor in Epic. They are the ones who want to take Apple and Google's revenue. The instant that Apple is forced to allow 3rd party stores in China, Tencent will find a way to become the dominant store there, like they have with Google and it will cost Apple $10b+.

Which is another reason why Apple may not be able to sit on the sidelines. Apple as usual will have to be more involved, Apple isn’t quite there yet on the desktop when it comes to GPU’s, maybe by the M4, looking at that chart once again, they can’t leave it up to chance (third parties).

Also, Apple can roll up their sleeves and get busy or like half of the companies on that list they can cry to the government for help, I think Apple will stay true to type and roll up their sleeves.

danox said:

fastasleep said:

danox said:

I hope this doesn’t turn into another one of those Apple must roll up its sleeves moments again, with Apple getting into gaming engines, Apple has enough on it’s plate working towards GPU parity with AMD, and Nvidia, oh and that little business with Qualcomm regarding modem replacement.

1) The main appeal of engines like Unreal and Unity is that you can publish your game for all the platforms it supports — Mac, PC, consoles, iOS/iPadOS, tvOS, Android, web. That appeal is gone with an Apple-only game engine. This does not solve any problem.

2) none of those imaginary people would be working on those other projects

This is looking like another Code Warrior moment, where would the Apple be today?, If they hadn’t rolled up their sleeves and designed X-code, it appears that we are reaching the end of third party game engines on the Mac?, how long do you think Apple is gonna go through this? Or should Apple close up shop to any games and go without any 3-D raytracing hardware (just added to A17 coincidentally and probably the M3) and say oh well we’re not gonna do anything in the future because some third-party software company isn’t available or are pulling a fast one? Remember Code Warrior an outside third-party developer. 

Unity must have a death wish? They better look at what happened to Cold Warrior, Apple has had similar problems with Motorola, IBM and Intel, some technologies become too important to your future to let third-party outfits hold you hostage. Unity is over playing their hand in the same manner that Epic has, even if Apple puts a Band-Aid over it they probably are now thinking more seriously about whether or not they should make a game engine themselves which I’m sure a company as big as Apple has already considered. I think they will because of their past experience with Code Warrior, and the three companies that used to make CPUs for them.

In the end, if you want it done right you have to do it yourself? Maybe Unity is looking for a buyout?

https://www.osnews.com/story/11402/codewarrior-to-cease-development-on-os-x/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xcode